Leaders win power through relatively fair elections, then claim a popular mandate to make sweeping changes that eventually eliminate the possibility of a peaceful rotation of power.
For readers encountering the search term “autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd” (likely a typographical shorthand for “UPenn” or “UPenn Law”), it is worth untangling the institutional threads.
2. Updated Tactics: How Autocrats Dismantle Democracy (2024–2026) autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
Scheppele emphasizes that autocratic legalism creates a trap for domestic and international actors:
Turkey has provided another testing ground. A 2025 analysis on Verfassungsblog noted that while Scheppele's conventional understanding of autocratic legalism focuses on legal reforms that weaken political opposition groups, her emphasis lies on dismantling checks on executive authority rather than simply sidelining political opponents. The Turkish case, with the imprisonment of presidential candidates and the weaponization of anti-terror laws against political rivals, shows how the two dimensions often converge in practice. Leaders win power through relatively fair elections, then
The update (“UPD”) is this: autocrats have become better lawyers. And so, to save democracy, democrats must become better lawyers too—armed with Scheppele’s playbook, not just of what autocrats do, but of how to dismantle their legally woven cages.
In Brazil, scholars have extended Scheppele's framework to analyze the Bolsonaro era. Marina Barreto, in a 2023 article, proposed the concept of "autocratic infra-legalism" to describe how the Bolsonaro administration used administrative legal tools rather than formal constitutional changes to advance its illiberal agenda, offering a counter-argument to Scheppele's original thesis. This academic debate illustrates how Scheppele's framework continues to generate new theoretical developments as scholars apply it to different national contexts. The update (“UPD”) is this: autocrats have become
Perhaps Scheppele's most hopeful contribution in recent years is her emphasis on transnational law as a tool for democratic restoration. In her 2024 Annual Review article and in various lectures, she has highlighted the primary role that transnational courts play in transforming individual rights into constitutional structures that safeguard democratic institutions. From judicial independence to presidential term limits, transnational courts are reshaping the legal landscape in the fight against autocratic legalism.
These debates do not undermine Scheppele's core insight; they enrich it. The proliferation of related concepts—autocratic legalism, weaponized legalism, illiberal constitutionalism, autocratic infra-legalism—suggests a robust and evolving scholarly conversation about how law can be used for anti-democratic ends.